Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 13617/2022 and CM APP No. 41496/2022 and
52798/2022 AASHISH GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Nidhi Gupta, Advocate
Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned ASG
Counsel, NTA, Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Standing Counsel, CGSC, Ms. Pragya Bhushan, Mr. Karandeep Singh, Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Mr. Amit Singh, Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Ms. Navya Goel and Ms. Muskaan Gupta, Advocates
AASHISH GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Nidhi Gupta, Advocate
Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned ASG
Counsel, NTA, Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Standing Counsel, CGSC, Ms. Pragya Bhushan, Mr. Karandeep Singh, Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Mr. Amit Singh, Ms. Navya Goel and Ms. Muskaan Gupta, Advocates
JUDGMENT
19.01.2024
1. The Petitioner, Aashish Gupta appeared for his Class XII examination under the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) in 2021-2022.
2. In 2022, the Department of Higher Education (DOHE), Ministry of Education, Union of India, as part of the New Education Policy (NEP), decided to centralize undergraduate admissions to all Central Universities after class XII through a Central University Entrance Test/CUET (UG). The first such test was the CUET (UG)- 2022, for which applications were invited vide Public Notice dated 26 March 2022, issued by the National Testing Agency (NTA) which was to conduct the CUET.
3. The petitioner applied for and appeared in the CUET (UG) 2022 examination (“the 2022 CUET” hereinafter) on 18 August 2022 and 30 August 2022. The provisional answer keys for the 2022 CUET were released by the NTA on 8 September 2022.
4. On the same day, i.e. 8 September 2022, the NTA issued a Public Notice, allowing candidates who had appeared in the CUET to challenge the provisional answer key by paying a nominal fee therefor. It was stated, in the Public Notice, that, if the challenge raised by any candidate was found to be correct, the provisional answer key would be corrected and final answer key would be issued accordingly. The final result of the CUET would be based on the final answer key. The Public Notice also clarified that no individual candidate would be informed about the outcome of her/his challenge and that the final answer key would not be open to question.
5. The petitioner submitted objections against the answer proposed in the provisional answer key in respect of 11 questions on 10 September 2022, within the time stipulated in that regard.
6. On 15 September 2022, a second Public Notice was issued by the NTA, stating that the challenges to the provisional answer key had been placed before the concerned subject experts and that the answer keys had been finalized. 2219 questions in three mediums, it was noted, had, in the process, to be re-examined. The Public Notice also stated that the final answer key would be available by 10 pm on that date i.e. 15 September 2022.
7. On 16 September 2022, the final result of the 2022 CUET, along with the final scores of the individual candidates was released by the NTA.
8. Aggrieved by the fact that the NTA had proceeded to release the final results without making the final answer key known to the candidates, the petitioner moved this Court by means of WP (C) 13617/2022, which is one of the two writ petitions which this judgment disposes of.
9. The petitioner prayed, in the said writ petition, that the NTA be directed to publish the final answer keys of the 2022 CUET.
10. On 6 October 2022, this Court was apprised that the subjectwise/slot-wise official answer key was available for viewing on the website https://cuet.samarth.ac.in/index.php/site/login and that the challenge by the petitioner in respect of two of the questions had been accepted, resulting in updating of the petitioner’s score.
11. As it transpires, a perusal of the final answer key, as uploaded on the respondent’s website, disclosed that, prior to publication of the final result on 16 September 2022, the challenge by the petitioner to two other answers in the proposed answer key had been accepted. As such, the position that emerged was that, of the 11 answers in the provisional answer key, which were challenged by the petitioner, the challenge was accepted in respect of four answers, of which two were accepted prior to the release of the final result and two were accepted after the petitioner had filed WP (C) 13617/2022.
12. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a second writ petition WP (C) 14724/2022, which is also disposed of by the present judgment. In that writ petition, the petitioner sought that the objections raised by the petitioner in respect of the remaining questions, and not accepted by the NTA, be also considered/re-considered and the corrected result/score card of the petitioner be published. The precise prayer of the petitioner in W.P.(C) 14724/2022, reads as under: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble High Court be pleased to Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriately order or directions to the Respondents i. to consider/reconsider the objections raised by petitioner to the provisional answer key and not accepted by the Respondent No.1. ii. Corrected Result/Score Card of the petitioner be published. iii. Issue such other writ/order/direction/as the Hon’ble High Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
13. Consequent on issuance of notice in WP (C) 14724/2022, the NTA filed a counter affidavit, para 2 of which reads thus:
14. This Court, in its order dated 26 April 2023 in WP (C) 14724/2022, found it surprising that, after the final results of the CUET had been declared on 16 September 2022, there was a second exercise of examination of the objections to the proposed answer key. The NTA was therefore directed to file a specific affidavit explaining how, and why, this happened. This requirement was clarified in para 4 of the subsequent order dated 2 November 2023 passed in W.P.(C) 14724/2022:
15. NTA has, in compliance with the aforesaid direction, filed an additional affidavit dated 17 November 2023. It is stated, in paras 4 to 10 of the said affidavit thus:
16. Today, the NTA is represented by Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General alongwith Mr. Apoorv Kurup and Mr. Sanjay Khanna. The learned ASG has pointed out that the exercise of re-examination of the answer keys after the final results were declared may have been avoidable but was undertaken bonafide, especially as a large number of objections were received even after the final result was declared. It is submitted that, in the interest of the students, a decision was taken to reconsider the objections. The fact that the CUET was being conducted for the first time, and the magnitude of the exercise, had persuaded the NTA to adopt this approach.
17. However, the Court has been assured that in future, this would not happen and that any exercise of consideration of objections to the provisional answer key would be undertaken only prior to the final result of the examination of the CUET. The Court has also been assured that the final answer key would be uploaded on the website of the NTA at least a day prior to the final declaration of result, though it would be accessible only through the individual login ID and password of the candidate concerned.
18. The Court is satisfied with the explanation. The NTA is directed to ensure that these assurances are scrupulously adhered to, in future.
19. In so far as the prayer in WP (C) 14724/2022 is concerned, Ms. Nidhi Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, very fairly does not press the prayer for a fresh consideration of the remaining objections raised by the petitioner to the provisional answer key released by the CUET.
20. WP (C) 14724/2022, therefore, does not survive for further consideration and is disposed of.
21. In WP (C) 13617/2022, the petitioner has filed CM 52798/2022, seeking to amend the writ petition for a thorough investigation into the manner in which there was a re-examination of the answer keys in the present case and for summoning the records pertaining to normalization of scores of the CUET, etc.
22. I am not inclined at this point of time to direct any such investigation as it would lead to needless controversy and it does not appear that the NTA has, in acting as it did, not been bona fide. The substantive prayer in WP (C) 13617/2022, which was for making known the final answer key, stands satisfied.
23. Accordingly, the said writ petition is also disposed of.